Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Evidence that at some point Luke began at v. 1:5b

Expand Messages
  • David Inglis
    In Ad. Haer, Book III, Chapter 11, 8 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103311.htm ), Irenaeus is quoted as follows: And therefore the Gospels are in accord
    Message 1 of 8 , May 11 5:02 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      In Ad. Haer, Book III, Chapter 11, 8 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103311.htm ), Irenaeus is quoted as follows:



      And therefore the Gospels are in accord with these things, among which Christ Jesus is seated.

      For that according to John relates His original, effectual, and glorious generation from the Father, thus declaring, In
      the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

      But that according to Luke, taking up [His] priestly character, commenced with Zacharias the priest offering sacrifice
      to God.

      Matthew, again, relates His generation as a man, saying, The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David,
      the son of Abraham; .

      Mark, on the other hand, commences with [a reference to] the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men, saying,
      The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias the prophet,.



      All these begin with what we see as the first verses of the gospel, except for Luke, which begins at v. 1:5. Victorinus
      (c. 270) essentially confirms this in his "Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John" (
      http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0712.htm ) chapter 4, 7-10, although he may be simply be re-stating Irenaeus:



      Mark, therefore, as an evangelist thus beginning, The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ [Mk 1:1], as it is written
      in Isaiah the prophet; [Mk 1:2a] The voice of one crying in the wilderness, [Mk 1:3a] .

      And Matthew, The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham: [Mt 1:1] .

      But Luke said, There was a priest, by name Zachariah, of the course of Abia, and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron:
      [Lk 1:5b] .

      But John, when he begins, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, [Jn 1:1] .



      Luke 1:1-4 is an obvious intro, so is there any other evidence to suggest that at some point Luke did not have these
      first 4 verses?

      David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • E Bruce Brooks
      David Inglis asked, a propos quotations of Gospel beginnings in the Patristic literature, that for Luke lacking the prologue: Luke 1:1-4 is an obvious intro,
      Message 2 of 8 , May 11 7:41 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        David Inglis asked, a propos quotations of Gospel beginnings in the
        Patristic literature, that for Luke lacking the prologue:

        " Luke 1:1-4 is an obvious intro, so is there any other evidence to suggest
        that at some point Luke did not have these first 4 verses?"

        I would guess that its intro function - that is, its status as a label, and
        thus as standing outside the Gospel story proper - was as obvious to the
        ancients as to us, and they would no more begin a quote with it then a
        modern person would begin a quote from a modern novel by repeating the
        copyright information at the front of the book, or precede a quote of a
        Shakespeare sonnet with a copy of the publisher's dedication to the sonnets'
        "onlie begetter," or introduce an extract from Benjamin Wisner Bacon by
        giving the call number of the local library copy of that work. It would be a
        gaucherie to do so, and would mark the quoter as a lackwit and an oaf.

        If nevertheless the thought be entertained that Lk 1:1-4 is a later addition
        to the version of Luke which begins with the Birth Narrative, what would
        have been the motive and effect of its addition? "Theophilus" is a pretty
        good general name for one interested in religion, and thus as a general
        invocation of the intended reader of the Gospel. There seems to be no known
        specific "Theophilus" whose later mention would add luster to the book, or
        enhance its acceptance. The book in its later form, with the Birth Narrative
        prefixed to the previous version, is then introduced by the preface, which
        shows it to have been aimed at the intelligent Christian reader (sic; not
        hearer), the Benjamin Wisner Bacon public; the prologue or dedication seeks
        to advance the claims of Luke (B) over the claims of other accounts of
        Jesus, then in general circulation and thus competing with Luke (B) itself
        for acceptance by that critical reading public, by claiming finality if not
        originality for its text. As a modern publisher might push a competing
        Scripture Commentary by calling it "definitive."

        The race is then with Matthew and Mark. Why not with Q and Mark? Because if
        any "Q" text was that much in the picture - that much in the running for
        general favor - when the prologue of Luke B was penned, it becomes highly
        unlikely that no reference or other evidence for its existence should ever
        have been found. If on the other hand Matthew and Mark are the other texts
        in view in the prologue (and since Luke B is theologically and otherwise
        further developed along general lines than Matthew, and thus, in that form,
        presumptively later than both, this is a possibility), everything seems to
        work.

        No?

        Then the prologue was not present when Luke A was written (Luke A began at
        the present Lk 3:1f), at which time Matthew did not yet exist and Luke's
        only task was to write something which would update Mark for the Sixties.
        The prologue was instead part of the highly competitive Luke B, written with
        the purpose of contesting the ground with the already popular Matthew, and
        striving to outdo Matthew at every turn (not least in the Birth Narrative,
        where Luke utterly swamps Matthew, with not one but two miraculous births,
        and so on down the line).

        Now, if some late author had seemed to regard Lk 3:1f as the beginning of
        Luke's Gospel, THEN we would have something of interest. Or so it looks from
        here.

        Bruce

        E Bruce Brooks
        Warring States Project
        University of Massachusetts at Amherst
      • David Inglis
        In response to my question: Luke 1:1-4 is an obvious intro, so is there any other evidence to suggest that at some point Luke did not have these first 4
        Message 3 of 8 , May 12 11:07 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          In response to my question: " Luke 1:1-4 is an obvious intro, so is there any other evidence to suggest that at some
          point Luke did not have these first 4 verses?" Bruce Brooks answered:



          "I would guess that its intro function - that is, its status as a label, and thus as standing outside the Gospel story
          proper - was as obvious to the ancients as to us, and they would no more begin a quote with it then a modern person
          would begin a quote from a modern novel by repeating the copyright information at the front of the book, or precede a
          quote of a Shakespeare sonnet with a copy of the publisher's dedication to the sonnets' "onlie begetter," or introduce
          an extract from Benjamin Wisner Bacon by giving the call number of the local library copy of that work. It would be a
          gaucherie to do so, and would mark the quoter as a lackwit and an oaf."



          Bruce then followed this with a discussion amounting to trying to get into the head of aLk and come up with a motive for
          adding Lk 1:1-4 to an existing document. IMHO any attempt to come up with a motive for why aLk (or anyone else) wrote is
          most likely doomed to failure. We weren't there, we don't know who or what any of the NT authors knew or didn't know, we
          don't know who they were writing for, what other NT documents their target readership may have had access to, etc. In
          short, unless we find something specifically telling us when an author did what they did, anything else is little
          better than guesswork. In this particular case, Bruce (as I understand it) is effectively saying that it doesn't matter
          how much evidence we might find in the patristic literature, it is of no account because none of the fathers would have
          had any reason to quote Lk 1:1-4. In the instances I quoted this is a reasonable possibility for the omission of Lk
          1:1-4 (except that both instances actually begin with Lk 1:5b), but that's all it is - a possibility, and none of what
          Bruce wrote goes further than this.



          Other possibilities exist, of course, such as: Chapters 1-2 were not originally in Lk A, and were added later (as part
          of Lk B). aLk then wrote Acts, modified the end of Lk, and added Lk 1:1-4 to tie the two documents together (and so
          created Lk C). Theophilus was a real person (who is just not mentioned in any extant records) to whom both documents
          were addressed, and this copy then formed the basis of all copies of Lk since. Now I'm not suggesting that this IS what
          happened, but the evidence strongly suggests that there WERE different versions of Lk, and that without any actual
          evidence to the contrary, Lk 1:1-4 COULD be a late addition.



          What is the earliest evidence we have for the existence of Lk 1:1-4? Neither P45 nor P75 are extant for the early
          chapters of Lk, P4 and P42 are not extant for the early part of Lk 1, so (unless I've missed something) there's no ms
          evidence for Lk 1:1-4 until the 3rd century. So, perhaps a better question from me would have been: What is the earliest
          patristic evidence for the existence of Lk 1:1-4? Anyone?



          David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

          Luke Chapters 1 and 2 <https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/Home/luke/luke-chapters-1-and-2>







          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Dennis
          Maybe Irenaeus. http://earlychristianwritings.com/e-catena/luke1.html Dennis Dean Carpenter Dahlonega, Ga. So, perhaps a better question from me would have
          Message 4 of 8 , May 12 11:48 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Maybe Irenaeus.

            http://earlychristianwritings.com/e-catena/luke1.html



            Dennis Dean Carpenter

            Dahlonega, Ga.



            So, perhaps a better question from me would have been: What is the earliest
            patristic evidence for the existence of Lk 1:1-4? Anyone?

            David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

            Luke Chapters 1 and 2
            <https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/Home/luke/luke-chapters-1-and
            -2>

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Jgibson
            ... Origien Jeffrey ****** *Origenes* Theol., *Fragmenta in evangelium Joannis *(in catenis) (2042: 006) /Origenes Werke, /vol. 4 , Ed. Preuschen, E. Leipzig:
            Message 5 of 8 , May 12 12:14 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              On 5/12/2013 1:48 PM, Dennis wrote:
              > Maybe Irenaeus.
              >
              > http://earlychristianwritings.com/e-catena/luke1.html
              >
              >
              Origien

              Jeffrey

              ******

              *Origenes* Theol., *Fragmenta in evangelium Joannis *(in catenis) (2042:
              006)
              "/Origenes Werke, /vol. 4", Ed. Preuschen, E.
              Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1903; /Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller /10.
              Fragment 1, line 71

              ??? ?
              ?????? ?????? «*_?????_**_?????????_* ???? ?? ??' ????? ???????? ???
              »???????? ????????? ??? ?????».
              ------------------------------------------------------------------------


              *Origenes* Theol., *Homiliae in Lucam* (2042: 016)
              "/Origenes Werke, /vol. 9, 2nd edn.", Ed. Rauer, M.
              Berlin: Akademie--Verlag, 1959; /Die griechischen christlichen
              Schriftsteller/ 49 (35).
              Homily 1, page 7, line 14

              ??? ?????? «*_???-
              ??_**_?????????_* ???? ?? ??' ?????
              ???????? ??? ???????? ?????????
              ??? ?????».

              *Origenes* Theol., *Fragmenta in Lucam *(in catenis) (2042: 017)
              "/Origenes Werke, /vol. 9, 2nd edn.", Ed. Rauer, M.
              Berlin: Akademie--Verlag, 1959; /Die griechischen christlichen
              Schriftsteller /49 (35).
              Fragment 5, line 2

              ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??????? ?????????? ??? ???????? ????????? ???-
              ??????, ????? ?????????? ?????? «*_?????_**_?????????_* ???? ?? ??' ?????
              ???????? ??? ???????? ????????? ??? ?????».

              *Origenes* Theol., *Scholia in Lucam *(fragmenta e cod. Venet. 28)
              (2042: 078); /MPG /17.
              Volume 17, page 312, line 43

              ??? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ?????????? ??? ???-
              ????? ????????, ????? ?????????? ?????? /*_?????_**_
              ?????????_* ???? ?? ??' ????? ???????? ??? ??-
              ?????? ????????? ??? ?????./ ????????????? ??, ???
              ?????? ??????????????, ?? ???? ??? ?????????, ????
              ????.

              *Origenes* Theol., Scholia in Lucam (fragmenta e cod. Venet. 28)
              Volume 17, page 313, line 19

              ??? ?????, /*_?????_**_?????????_*
              ???? ?? ??' ????? ???????? ??? ???????? ????-
              ????? ??? ?????./ ?? ??? ?? ????????? ??? ??????
              ???? ???? ???????? ?????? ???????? ??? ??? ????-
              ??? ???????? ?? ??? ?????, ??????????? ?????, ???
              ?????? ? ????????, ??? ?????? ?? ????????? /????-
              ?????, ????????? ?????./ ?? ??? ??????? ??? ??-
              ??? ???? ???????, ???? ?????? ? ?????? /? ???????
              ???, ?????? ??? ??????, ??? ???????? ??./ ???
              ????????? ?? ????? ?????? ???????? ???? ? ?????? *

              Origenes* Theol., *Commentarii in evangelium Joannis *(lib. 19, 20, 28,
              32) (2042: 079)

              *"/Origenes Werke, /vol. 4", Ed. Preuschen, E.
              Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1903; /Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller /10.
              Book 20, chapter 7, section 46, line 2

              >*


              ????? ????????? ?? ????? ???????? ??' ????? ????????
              ????????? ??? ?????, ???? ?? ? ?????? ????? «*_?????_**_?????????_*
              »???? ?? ??' ????? ???????? ??? ???????? ????????? ??? ?????»,
              ???? ??? ?????? ???????? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ?????, ???
              ???? ????? ???????? ?? «?????? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ? ????»,
              ?????? ???????? ????? ??? ?? ? ???? ?????????.


              --
              ---
              Jeffrey B. Gibson D.Phil. Oxon.
              1500 W. Pratt Blvd
              Chicago, IL
              jgibson000@...



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • David Inglis
              Thanks Dennis, Jeffrey: In Ad. Haer (c. 180) Irenaeus gives us evidence of Lk 1:2. Origen is obviously later (e.g. Homilies on Luke c. 240 quotes Lk 1:1), so
              Message 6 of 8 , May 12 1:29 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                Thanks Dennis, Jeffrey: In Ad. Haer (c. 180) Irenaeus gives us evidence of Lk 1:2. Origen is obviously later (e.g.
                Homilies on Luke c. 240 quotes Lk 1:1), so can we go back any further than Irenaeus?



                David Inglis



                From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jgibson
                Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 12:14 PM
                To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Evidence that at some point Luke began at v. 1:5b

                On 5/12/2013 1:48 PM, Dennis wrote:
                > Maybe Irenaeus.
                >
                > http://earlychristianwritings.com/e-catena/luke1.html
                >
                Origien

                Jeffrey

                ******

                *Origenes* Theol., *Fragmenta in evangelium Joannis *(in catenis) (2042:
                006)
                "/Origenes Werke, /vol. 4", Ed. Preuschen, E.
                Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1903; /Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller /10.
                Fragment 1, line 71

                ??? ?
                ?????? ?????? <*_?????_**_?????????_* ???? ?? ??' ????? ???????? ???
                >???????? ????????? ??? ?????>.
                ----------------------------------------------------------

                *Origenes* Theol., *Homiliae in Lucam* (2042: 016)
                "/Origenes Werke, /vol. 9, 2nd edn.", Ed. Rauer, M.
                Berlin: Akademie--Verlag, 1959; /Die griechischen christlichen
                Schriftsteller/ 49 (35).
                Homily 1, page 7, line 14

                ??? ?????? <*_???-
                ??_**_?????????_* ???? ?? ??' ?????
                ???????? ??? ???????? ?????????
                ??? ?????>.

                *Origenes* Theol., *Fragmenta in Lucam *(in catenis) (2042: 017)
                "/Origenes Werke, /vol. 9, 2nd edn.", Ed. Rauer, M.
                Berlin: Akademie--Verlag, 1959; /Die griechischen christlichen
                Schriftsteller /49 (35).
                Fragment 5, line 2

                ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??????? ?????????? ??? ???????? ????????? ???-
                ??????, ????? ?????????? ?????? <*_?????_**_?????????_* ???? ?? ??' ?????
                ???????? ??? ???????? ????????? ??? ?????>.

                *Origenes* Theol., *Scholia in Lucam *(fragmenta e cod. Venet. 28)
                (2042: 078); /MPG /17.
                Volume 17, page 312, line 43

                ??? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ?????????? ??? ???-
                ????? ????????, ????? ?????????? ?????? /*_?????_**_
                ?????????_* ???? ?? ??' ????? ???????? ??? ??-
                ?????? ????????? ??? ?????./ ????????????? ??, ???
                ?????? ??????????????, ?? ???? ??? ?????????, ????
                ????.

                *Origenes* Theol., Scholia in Lucam (fragmenta e cod. Venet. 28)
                Volume 17, page 313, line 19

                ??? ?????, /*_?????_**_?????????_*
                ???? ?? ??' ????? ???????? ??? ???????? ????-
                ????? ??? ?????./ ?? ??? ?? ????????? ??? ??????
                ???? ???? ???????? ?????? ???????? ??? ??? ????-
                ??? ???????? ?? ??? ?????, ??????????? ?????, ???
                ?????? ? ????????, ??? ?????? ?? ????????? /????-
                ?????, ????????? ?????./ ?? ??? ??????? ??? ??-
                ??? ???? ???????, ???? ?????? ? ?????? /? ???????
                ???, ?????? ??? ??????, ??? ???????? ??./ ???
                ????????? ?? ????? ?????? ???????? ???? ? ?????? *

                Origenes* Theol., *Commentarii in evangelium Joannis *(lib. 19, 20, 28,
                32) (2042: 079)

                *"/Origenes Werke, /vol. 4", Ed. Preuschen, E.
                Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1903; /Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller /10.
                Book 20, chapter 7, section 46, line 2

                >*

                ????? ????????? ?? ????? ???????? ??' ????? ????????
                ????????? ??? ?????, ???? ?? ? ?????? ????? <*_?????_**_?????????_*
                >???? ?? ??' ????? ???????? ??? ???????? ????????? ??? ?????>,
                ???? ??? ?????? ???????? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ?????, ???
                ???? ????? ???????? ?? <?????? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ? ????>,
                ?????? ???????? ????? ??? ?? ? ???? ?????????.

                --
                ---
                Jeffrey B. Gibson D.Phil. Oxon.
                1500 W. Pratt Blvd
                Chicago, IL
                jgibson000@... <mailto:jgibson000%40comcast.net>



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Ronald Price
                ... David, For what it s worth, neither my page model for LukeEdn1 nor my page model for LukeEdn2 would work without the inclusion of these verses. (For the
                Message 7 of 8 , May 13 1:20 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  David Inglis wrote:

                  > Luke 1:1-4 is an obvious intro, so is there any other evidence to suggest that
                  > at some point Luke did not have these first 4 verses?

                  David,

                  For what it's worth, neither my page model for LukeEdn1 nor my page model
                  for LukeEdn2 would work without the inclusion of these verses. (For the
                  structures and page models of Mark, Acts, Gal and Heb, go to the web page
                  below. The details for Luke have not yet been made available, but they
                  follow a similar pattern to that of the other books.)

                  Consequently I am sure that these verses were part of the original gospel.

                  Ron Price,

                  Derbyshire, UK

                  http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/page_head.html



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • E Bruce Brooks
                  To: Synoptic In Response To: David Inglis On: Inside The Head of Luke From: Bruce David (on 12 May) had a rather crisp response to a comment of mine about the
                  Message 8 of 8 , May 19 3:12 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    To: Synoptic
                    In Response To: David Inglis
                    On: Inside The Head of Luke
                    From: Bruce

                    David (on 12 May) had a rather crisp response to a comment of mine about the
                    motive of Luke at one point, and perhaps I should not let it go by without
                    rejoinder. David had said, inter alia:

                    "Bruce then followed this with a discussion amounting to trying to get into
                    the head of aLk and come up with a motive for adding Lk 1:1-4 to an existing
                    document. IMHO any attempt to come up with a motive for why aLk (or anyone
                    else) wrote is most likely doomed to failure. We weren't there, we don't
                    know who or what any of the NT authors knew or didn't know, we don't know
                    who they were writing for, what other NT documents their target readership
                    may have had access to, etc."

                    That is an absolute statement, applying to anything and everything in the
                    past. As an absolute statement applying to *everything,* it is undoubtedly
                    correct. We don't know (of our own direct experience) what Luke was
                    thinking, we don't know what anyone at the present time is thinking; and as
                    any shrink will tell you, we don't know, or at any rate cannot comprehend,
                    what we ourselves are thinking. We don't know the atomic weight of cesium,
                    and we don't know the motion of the moon.

                    Granted. But these are all areas in which some answers are better than
                    others, and some of the better answers are good enough to get along with. We
                    don't know the motion of the moon, but the people who did the calculations
                    for landing a vehicle on the moon seem to have indeed made moonfall. We
                    don't, in the metaphysical sense, know what possessed Luke, but there are
                    places where, at any rate, a hypothesis at one point can be supported, and
                    to that extent confirmed, by data from another point.

                    Take for example the controversial Atonement doctrine (controversial between
                    Paul in Romans, who argues for it from scripture, and the Epistle of James,
                    which heaps scorn and ridicule on precisely Paul's arguments from
                    scripture). That doctrine is almost absent from Mark, but it appears, I
                    would say unmistakably, at Mk 10:45, "For the Son of Man also came not to be
                    served, but to serve, *and to give his life as a ransom for many.*" Such
                    words as "blood" and "bought" and "ransom" tend to be markers for this
                    particular idea.

                    That this passage stood in Mk is made probable by the fact that Mt repeats
                    it identically. We then have to do with an Atonement affirmation in Mk, and
                    not some phantasm. So there it is, and along comes Luke, and now what does
                    Lk do with it?

                    He omits it (cf Lk 22:27, which picks up the "one who serves" part, but not
                    the "ransom for many" part).

                    We now ask, Why? I would suggest: because he didn't like it. That reason for
                    omitting something in one's Vorlage is probably commonplace; it certainly
                    requires no straining of the imagination; it is a plausible thought. But is
                    there any reason why we should prefer that particular plausible thought to
                    what may perhaps be other plausible thoughts?

                    There seems to be. In Acts, Luke describes in exquisite detail the career of
                    Paul, who we remember made much of the Atonement Doctrine in his own letters
                    (not only in Romans, but also in 1 Cor and in Galatians). Paul's affirmation
                    of this doctrine, and indeed the central position of this doctrine in his
                    thinking, thus need little argument. There they are, they are part of Paul
                    if anything is part of Paul. If we take from our reading of Paul's genuine
                    letters one fact about Paul's theology, this is probably going to be it. So
                    far Paul.

                    Now along comes Luke, and what does Luke do with this doctrine, as part of
                    Paul's teaching? Answer: He suppresses it. He shows Paul as preaching in all
                    sorts of places, but always from the OT, and not from Jesus's death. The
                    concept of "ransom" appears only once, and not as preaching, but as a
                    passing personal comment by Paul when taking leave of the Ephesian elders
                    (Ac 20:28, "to feed the church of the Lord, which he obtained with his own
                    blood"). That's the crop. This gives an entirely different idea of Paul's
                    convictions, and his late preaching, than we get from Paul's presumably more
                    accurate letters. It can only be intentional on Luke's part, and the
                    intention seems to be to deny the Atonement doctrine, not quite as something
                    Paul believed in (whence Ac 20:28), but as something which, if Luke has
                    anything to do about it, is *not* going to go down in history as part of
                    Apostolic preaching. Luke here excises the Atonement from what is sometimes
                    called the kerygma.

                    I would suggest that this second, panoramic, wide-scale example goes far to
                    confirm the already plausible inference that one might draw from Luke's
                    treatment of the single passage Mk 10:45.

                    I thus submit that, short of metaphysical certainty, which by definition we
                    are not going to get about any proposition whatever, the inference as to
                    Luke's motive in treating Mk 10:45 as he does may stand as not only
                    reasonable, but as consistent with Luke's practice elsewhere. That thought
                    may at least do until something better (something that explains even more of
                    the data) comes along.

                    Bruce

                    E Bruce Brooks
                    Warring States Project
                    University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.